3 - Do we do things differently since 9/11?

Lambert Zuidervaart sits down with Daryl Kinsman to discuss how the
shape, scope and direction of research and scholarship have altered
over the past 10 years.

Daryl: September 11, 2001 was one of those epoch-making events that changed not only
the United States, but the whole world. In the 10 years since 9/11,
how do you think research and scholarship in the West have changed,
if at all?

Lambert: After 9/11 one of the things that happened was people started to
think more carefully and seriously about the problem of evil. In
philosophy itself it wasn’t much of an issue, but if you look at
the literature that comes out after 9/11 there’s much more
discussion about it. For many people that became a very pressing
problem again. Many of the scholars who work in areas like religion,
philosophy and literature, started addressing it more directly than
they had for quite some time.

A second thing that has occurred is more emphasis on interdisciplinary
study. If you’re going to understand what happened on 9/11, where
that event came from and the consequences of the event, you can’t
just be doing it in a specialized way in economics, politics,
sociology or philosophy in isolation. You have to bring these
disciplines into conversation with each other. It’s the kind of
event that goes beyond the paradigm of any one discipline.

The third thing is there has been a little bit more reflection on the
place of the Western academy. We’ve been forced to re-examine what
it is we’re trying to do as academics and whether what we do has
relevance and speaks to people’s needs. Discussions have emerged in
Europe about what it is intellectuals can contribute to the growth of
a society where different voices and different communities can be
respected and given recognition, and yet still maintain certain
values that are important in the West, such as individual freedom and
democracy. There’s more self-reflection on the role of the academy
as such. All of these things in some way were affected by the events
on 9/11.

One of the things I’m always aware of is that September 11 is also the
birthday of Theodor Adorno. He was a German Jewish philosopher who
fled Nazi Germany and lived in the United States for many years, and
then went back to Germany after the Second World War to help
reconstruct German society and the German university. One thing
that’s prominent in Adorno’s work is the theme of suffering. He
said the need to give a voice to suffering is a condition of all
truth. I’m not sure that would have spoken to many people before
9/11. But after it, particularly in North America, the notion that
you have to give a voice to suffering and let it be expressed, but
also try to understand it, has a lot more purchase than it did
before.

Daryl: Following from what you’ve already said, we’ve seen a variety of voices
trying to struggle with events post-9/11 in public discourse, popular
media and TV. If that’s happening in the academy, too, do you think
religion is more welcome at the table than it was or welcome in a
different way?

Lambert: The status of religion in the academy is still ambiguous. On the one
hand people understand the attacks on New York and the Pentagon, and
the downing of a plane in Pennsylvania, had some kind of religious
motivation behind them. That makes some people, especially some
academics, wary toward religion, even though others would say we’re
talking about a particular strand and interpretation of religion.
Nevertheless the response of many academics is: If that’s what
religion is all about, we don’t want to have anything to do with
it, and we certainly don’t want it corrupting what is legitimate
research, publication and teaching. But there are other people who
say: If religion is important in the lives of people – both on the
part of those who might engage in extreme acts of violence and on the
part of people who try to come to terms with suffering, as you see in
the many ceremonies, memorials and outpourings of support that came
after 9/11 – then maybe we should pay more attention to it than we
used to.

The other thing that has come up is a heightened awareness of the fact
that religion as an organized activity, set of practices and
institutional framework in people’s lives isn’t going to go away
as the old secularization thesis suggested. For those who are
committed Buddhists, Muslims, Christians or Jews the question is:
What role should those commitments play in their scholarship? It’s
something that at ICS and the Centre for Philosophy, Religion and
Social Ethics (CPRSE), we continue to work with, because our
tradition says these kinds of religious commitments need to inform
our scholarly work and make a contribution in scholarship itself.
There’s more openness, in a very general way, in the academy to
matters of religion, but I’m not sure it has become an openness
that has had a serious effect on the way people do their day-to-day
scholarship.

Daryl: How would you see CPRSE itself fitting in, in terms of the kinds of
activities it encourages or engages vis-à-vis expanding or modifying
the role of religion in the academy and public discourse?

Lambert: CPRSE has in its title three main areas of discourse: one is
philosophy, the other is religion and another is social ethics. We’re
really concerned about how these three discourses intersect or need
to intersect, but I think the most important way in which CPRSE can
move along the discussion of religion and the understanding of
religion in society is by focussing on issues of social ethics. What
CPRSE can provide is a forum in which more robust and more
substantive conversation over values and purpose can emerge along
with a more natural way for us to refer to matters of religion.

Historically one of the things religion has provided is a deep sense of justice,
hospitality and caring for the earth. The way we can contribute to
having religion taken seriously, and also engaging in a critical
examination of religion since it isn’t always a good thing, is to
look at what it contributes to social ethics. Obviously there are
differences within religions concerning the nature, importance and
inclusiveness of justice, and the like. However, emphasizing social
ethics and getting at some of the big questions of value and purpose
– or in the tradition that ICS comes from, getting at the big
questions of normativity, the big orientation points for human life,
society and culture – would be a very good way for us to actually
contribute to an examination and incorporation of religion into
public and academic discourse. Because we’re a philosophical
institution and a philosophical research centre, we can do that with
rigour and awareness of the intellectual problems surrounding these
issues that another institution might not bring. We have a strength
here we need to draw on. This tradition of philosophical reflection
about normativity, and philosophical reflection about ethics that
goes beyond personal morality, professional ethics, medical ethics or
business ethics to the question of ethics pertaining to society as a
whole – that’s a good place for us to start and see where it
goes.

Daryl: In an article for Perspective, Henk Hart argues forcefully for doing the
unexpected in response to provocations like the attacks of 9/11, and
other things as well, like the tragedy in Norway. His argument is
religion should be calling us to respond differently, to do the
unexpected, to respond not with more violence, anger and fear every
time, but with something unexpected like reconciliation or
forgiveness.Is
there a role a place like CPRSE can play in shaping the kind of
thinking that leads to one set of reactions as opposed to another
set, perhaps a more useful set of reactions?

Lambert: It’s always tricky to figure out how an academic project can
contribute to public discussion and social change, because
occasionally the unexpected happens in the intersection between those
two and in both directions. Sometimes what comes up in an academic
area suddenly sheds light in a very unexpected way on something else
going on in society, but sometimes something happens in society which
disrupts the academic conversation and opens it up to a new insight.
CPRSE should be ready for both and not think an academic discourse or
research project is, in and of itself, able to shape society in a
certain direction without society pushing back and having some
tension, conflict and even new openings. So expecting the unexpected
would be a very good stance for CPRSE to have.

On the other hand we do know some things about patterns in society and
why people resort to extreme measures when they’re not recognized,
feel threatened or have grievances because of long-term injustice or
oppression. On those matters CPRSE should be helping us think through
the sources of discontent at the individual, religious and economic
levels. We need to encourage a readiness of the unexpected, but we
also need to use what we have to figure out where things are at and
how things need to change, and some of that needs to be long term.
We’re not talking about any quick solutions at this point. I was
just in Europe for three weeks and spent most of the time in the
Netherlands. I was struck by how much of the discussion, especially
in the Netherlands, surrounds questions of multiculturalism. That’s
partly because one of the parties in the governance has an
anti-immigrant stance and wants to revive some pure national
character – both of which I think aren’t good positions to take.
But they’re positions that resonate with a lot of Dutch citizens,
and you can find a similar thing in many countries in Europe right
now. When that happens it’s not enough just to say, well, we should
just get along better and be more tolerant. We have to pay attention
to why people feel threatened and disregarded, and why they want to
somehow circle the wagons and keep people outside who are different
than themselves, and then think about what kind of a society would be
more inclusive.

A response to attack is not to counterattack, but rather to be open to
what lies behind the attack, and to see whether we can actually have
sympathy for the real human needs, the real human beings that lie
behind an attack. That’s difficult, but the attitude is important,
because the attitude of just coming back with an attack, which became
official government policy in the United States, isn’t an attitude
of generosity that would be in tune with the underlying impulses of
most religions. Even though religion is trying to justify that kind
of attitude, it’s not at the core of genuine religion to be hostile
toward people, to treat other people as enemies, or to think you have
to go on the attack against them.

Daryl Kinsman is Manager of Communication and Information Technology

Lambert Zuidervaart is Director of the Centre for Philosophy, Religion and
Social Ethics, and Professor of Philosophy at ICS